The main point is that Obama's getting a lot of flack on foreign policy by people whose track-records prove they suck at it. And, almost without fail, the media treats these proven losers as if they were brilliant geopolitical minds. When William Kristol or Charles Krauthammer start sharing their wisdom in matters of diplomacy, you should feel free to double over in derisive laughter -- in fact, it should be required. When you look at their history, it's hard to argue that they're anything other than morons.

And I'm still waiting for one talking head to ask the most obvious freakin' question of other talking heads who argue that Obama should take a harder line; what are they saying will happen then? How would that change the outcome in any positive way? If you're going to take the position that the president ought to be doing something he's not, you really should be required to explain why.

So far, nothin'. Maybe something will turn up from the Sunday talking head shows -- I generally don't watch them, because they're only slightly less dumb than weekday talking head shows -- but I'm really not holding my breath. On this issue, like so many others, broadcast media is really blowing it. Whether the incompetence is real or feigned is anyone's guess and completely irrelevant. The result is the same -- a one-sided debate where the only argument being presented is "You suck, Barack Obama!"